Monthly Archives: March 2014

Attached (KKG Document 26) is a brief exchange of emails between Ramboll UK (one of The Jockey Club’s multifarious consultants) and Natural England, dated 20 Sep last year. It includes the by-now-familiar Area of Research map, and a brief note from Ramboll UK. The development is, in this letter, stated as being for 1500 residential units and (not the 1000 to 1500 unit range mentioned in correspondence we have previously circulated). This is such a large development that it needs 10 supporting commercial units to go with it.

We wonder whether the Waitrose supermarket suggested by one member of the Spelthorne Planning Committee at a meeting at Kempton Park is one of them?

As ever, this document is in the public domain. Please feel free to pass them on.

Share this:

Like this:

Please find attached (KKG Document 11) an abridged version of the Traffic Feasibility Study for the development at Kempton Park.

In order to reduce the size of the file, we have omitted Appendices F and H, which contain pages of data output from the transport model used by Mouchel.

The forecast extra traffic numbers during peak hours from a development of 1500 units at Kempton Park are on page 3 of Appendix C. During the AM peak, an extra 979 vehicles are forecast to travel in one direction or the other along the A308 between Sunbury Cross and Hampton Court. Given that car ownership in Sunbury is two per household or more, this appears to be a low estimate. Even so, Mouchel assume approximately 1000 extra cars on the local roads during rush hour …

The forecast distribution of these cars on the local road network during the AM peak is shown on the diagram D013 on page 5 of Appendix C. 78% of the extra traffic is forecast to turn right out of the proposed suburb of 1500 units at Kempton Park during the AM peak, and travel towards Sunbury Cross. This entrance/exit would in itself reduce the traffic flow on the A308, as the right-turning (westbound) traffic during the AM peak would have to turn in front of traffic travelling eastbound towards Hampton Court, and join the peak hour queue of traffic traveling westbound towards Sunbury Cross.

20% of cars from Kempton Park are assumed to turn left during the AM peak and travel in the other direction towards Hampton Court and beyond – to Richmond, Kingston and across Hampton Court Bridge towards the A3.

This distribution of the extra Kempton Park traffic is based on an assumption that the employment and lifestyle characteristics of the residents of the new suburb at Kempton Park will mirror those of the existing residents of Sunbury East. The Borough of Richmond, however, asked Mouchel to run the simulation again, but this time using the employment and lifestyle characteristics of the residents of Hampton Ward, our neighbours on the eastern edge of Spelthorne. The result are shown in diagram 1048911-D016-D01A in Appendix D.

Assuming that the residents of the new suburb behave more like residents of Hampton than Sunbury East, the extra traffic towards Sunbury Cross in the AM peak would only account for 2/3 of the total. Nevertheless, although traffic joining the (southbound) M3 is forecast to be significantly less, traffic on the (northbound) A316 would be more than 20% higher.

The remaining third would travel towards Hampton Court. The extra volume of traffic turning left at the Hampton Triangle would be more than triple (17% of the total as opposed to 5%) the number forecast to take that route under the Sunbury East assumption. The extra traffic volume travelling along the side of Hampton Court towards Kingston would be more than 40% bigger.

So, the traffic gets significantly heavier than it already is in both directions, with the direction of travel worst affected depending on how the new residents behave. And this would be on a ‘normal’ day. Don’t forget the week of the Hampton Court Flower show, and all the other events during the year which already cause very heavy traffic congestion on local roads on a regular and frequent basis.

Mouchel have been searching for ways to add this extra traffic to the local roads without causing a permanent gridlock. Hence the proposed massive redevelopment of Sunbury Cross (see KKG – Document 2 sent previously), and hence the proposed reworking of the traffic arrangements at the Hampton Triangle (Appendix G in KKG – Document 11) and the Hampton Court roundabout (Appendix E in KKG – Document 11). The proposed schemes don’t give us any confidence that they could make much of a difference to the existing over-burdened roads, never mind with the extra burden of a new suburb at Kempton Park.

As ever, these documents are in the public domain. Please feel free to pass them on.

Please encourage your neighbours to join the mailing list.

There is more to come, in due course, over coming weeks.

Yours

Keep Kempton Green

Share this:

Like this:

The question matters because, at some stage between the beginning of 2012 and the middle of 2013, it seems (we are told) that the plans for Kempton Park changed from a much smaller scheme to be built along the western and southern edges of the Kempton Park estate (bordering the racecourse section of the land), to a much larger scheme for up to 1500 units – possibly bigger – on the eastern half of the Kempton Park estate. (Although, since the entire estate is Green Belt, any development there would be contrary to the current Spelthorne Local Development Plan.)

What we can say definitely so far is:

1. One of Surrey County Council’s Transport Officers on 5 Jun 2013 mentions (see KKG Document 8 attached) being invited to a meeting on 2 Jul 2013 to discuss a potential development of 1500 to 2000 dwellings. That meeting was requested by Mouchel (The Jockey Club’s transport consultants) and was to be held at the Highways Agency office in Dorking.

2. We know from emails released to us between Ramboll UK (a civil engineering consultancy) and the Environment Agency that the EA knew on 7 Jun 2013 of the plans to build on the eastern half of the Jockey Club Estate.

3. Richmond Borough Council knew, at the latest, on 9 Jul 2013 about proposals for a development of 1000 to 1500 units at Kempton Park (see KKG Document 10 attached). That meeting, in Twickenham, was also attended by Mouchel and Transport for London.

So, by 5 Jun last year, Mouchel, the Highways Agency, and Surrey County Council knew of the larger scheme. By 7 Jun, the Environment Agency knew. By 9 Jul, at the latest, Richmond Borough Council and Transport for London knew.

Bearing in mind that a lot or preparatory work would have had to be done by The Jockey Club’s consultants before any of these meetings were arranged, the question is:

When did The Jockey Club first change their mind about the size of the development, and when did they tell everyone else not included in the correspondence and meetings detailed above?

As ever, these documents are in the public domain. Please feel free to pass them on.

Like this:

One of the documents we circulated previously (KKG Document 5) was a slide from a Power Point presentation by Mouchel, the transport consultants to The Jockey Club. The slide showed a timetable for the preparation and submission of a Planning Application for the proposed development at Kempton Park. It is attached for your convenience.

Assuming that Mouchel (and, by inference, The Jockey Club) are correct, why is Spelthorne even considering setting higher residential targets? And why do Mouchel and The Jockey Club think that such higher residential targets will assist an Application to build on Green Belt land?

Under the current local plan, the Council have a target – for the Borough as a whole – of 166 units per year. This target came from the SE Regional Plan in 2005, and was carried forward into the Local Development Framework which was adopted in 2009. The overall target was for the building of 3320 dwellings over a twenty year period ending in 2026.

Although the target of 166 units per year was set initially outside the Borough, the responsibility for setting housing targets has, since the 2011 Localism Act, rested with the Borough itself. Five years since the Local Development Framework started is probably a reasonable interval at which to revisit the housing target, but it has to be said that the existing target has been exceeded consistently since it was first set (see KKG – Document 23, attached). According to the Council’s own figures, the rolling target for the total number of new dwellings will be exceeded by 111 units this year, and will be overshot by 889 units by 2026.

(Although the rolling target for the total number of new homes is being exceeded, the target for affordable homes is not being met.)

As Spelthorne Council itself says in its 2013 Planning Monitoring Report:

“3.6 The housing policies have continued to meet the objectives of the CS&P DPD in providing new housing within the urban area to meet the overall plan target of 3320 dwellings. Despite the fact that some identified and allocated sites have not come forward for development as soon as expected due to the economic downturn, there is no need to take any action to bring forward measures to secure additional sites over and above those already identified.”

Kempton Park is not one of those sites “already identified”. A residential development at Kempton Park is not needed to meet the existing housing target.

And, if the existing housing target is raised, why should Green Belt land be considered a good place for development? Pressure from central government cannot be blamed. Even the Planning Minister, who has become so well known for advocating building on Green Belt and open countryside, has had to make the policy clear (see KKG Document 24).

As ever, these documents are in the public domain. Please feel free to pass them on.